Opinion: Parents 'have it all' (and then some)

C.W. Griffin//Miami Herald/MCTA mother and child are pictured in this file photo.

By Tom Deignan

One thing was missing from the debate that raged after the publication of Anne-Marie Slaughter’s now-famous Atlantic Monthly essay, "Why women can’t have it all": the blunt reality that this is almost entirely an upper-class dilemma.

The vast majority of American parents already "have it all." They have no choice but to work as they raise their children. A second salary is no longer a luxury and a "career" is pretty much whatever job you can land that actually offers decent health benefits.

Credit Slaughter for at least acknowledging this. ("I am well aware," she wrote, "that the majority of American women face problems far greater than any discussed in this article.") But if any real change is going to happen, this debate has got to be about more than — as Slaughter puts it — "highly educated, well-off (parents) who are privileged enough to have choices in the first place."

Forget, for a moment, the to-die-for choice Slaughter had to make: to work for Hillary Clinton at the State Department or work at Princeton University. These days, many parents consider themselves privileged if they can successfully complete "the handoff" — that is, one spouse returning home from a day job to watch the kids, just as the other spouse is heading out to a night job. Otherwise, working parents must find willing (not to mention charitable) neighbors or grandparents to babysit in order to avoid pricey child care that would otherwise eat up a second income — or third or fourth income, when part-time or seasonal jobs are taken into account.

And that’s when the marriage is functioning. More and more, I hear a bit of black humor among married couples who have hit a rough patch. "I’d get a divorce," they say, "if only I could afford it." Indeed, between the time and legal fees required, not to mention a second home or apartment for the departing spouse, it’s less costly to simply stay married.

And we have not yet even discussed single or abused parents, or those who have children with extraordinary needs.

And given the time/money crunch we see in 2012, what kind of problems await those children when they graduate from college in 15 years? (Which, by the way, is another $50,000 to $100,000 bill we haven’t even talked about.)

In theory, Slaughter and others are right to suggest that employers need to be more flexible when it comes to making time for workers who are parents. In practice, however, it’s more likely that things are swinging in the opposite direction. Employers are just as squeezed as workers by the tough economic times. They need maximum productivity. Few workers are likely comfortable enough to start demanding more flexibility.

Slaughter was also correct to note that many bosses probably hold subtle biases against working parents. After all, single men and women are simply more available to do more work. Slaughter hopes employers overcome such biases, but not only is that unlikely, we also can expect tensions between working parents and working singles to grow, as more and more people delay or forgo having children.

Many working singles are already resentful about losing out on all those tax breaks homeowning parents receive. Now, they are supposed to simply give up a key advantage they have in a tight job market?

One would think the presidential election would provide a fine forum for a broader discussion about how to raise a family in an increasingly ruthless economy. But all the talk about Clint Eastwood’s chair seems to leave precious little time for that. Besides, Republicans and Democrats also are vulnerable to the charge that they, too, focus on only a small, upper-class slice of society.

So we can probably expect the strains on working parents to grow, rather than shrink. There is a bright side, however. It’s not likely the divorce rate will rise any time soon.